Which, of course, eliminates most of Africa. Starvation and malnutrition appear at distressingly high intervals along the sahel region just south of the Sahara, exacerbated by warfare in the same regions. Neither is prevalent as a general condition throughout Africa, particularly not in locations such as Kenya and South Africa where AIDS still has an extremely high rate of reporting. Similarly, unsanitary conditions and disease are not prevalent across the entire sweep of sub-Sahara Africa. They are often reported for the medical facilities (which are overwhelmed by AIDS patients) but they are not a condition of life for the typical farmer or factory worker throughout the continent once one gets away from the war-torn regions.
If AIDS was being reported according to the Bangui definition only in Congo, the Sudan, and the other hot spots, this criticism might be legitimate. However, with the prevalence of AIDS throughout the entire sweep of the region south of the Sahara, including countries that are relatively prosperous and stable, the Bangui definition cannot be so easily dismissed.
Anywhere you care to check them–it’s across the board, even in America. The CDC site has a number of good essays on the heterosexual transmission of HIV among minorities in the US.
There has been some suggestion that minorities have a higher incidence of bisexuality and homosexuality, and there’s really no question that per capita they use more IV drugs, but that doesn’t account for the higher numbers of heterosexual transmission.
Because people get AIDS from other sources, such as third rate health care, and IV drug use, at a much higher rate in Africa. They get it from needles, and then pass it to prostitutes. And yes, the incidence of prostitution is markedly higher in Africa.
Comparing incidence of STDs in America with those in Africa is like comparing the penguin population in Antarctica with that in Egypt.
Not only can it, UNAIDS reports that it does. Dramatic decreases in HIV population are seen when education regarding the use of needles is passed on. Haiti is an excellent example–it still has a disturbingly high rate, but it’s no longer the AIDS capital of the world.
It’s kind of ironic how shocked we are to see their own health care infecting them, considering that two short decades ago, our own health care system was infecting us. We had the resources to fix that. They don’t.
Black market medication. Something we don’t have a problem with in developed nations–people who can’t get to see doctors get their medication from somewhere else. Then they inject themselves.
Those are both concerns. But the Eastern Europe analogy isn’t going to hold up very well. The numbers in Africa are staggering. We’re well beyond “concerned,” and looking more at localized epidemics.
You ignored the puzzling statistics that indicate that instance of sexually transmission may be being exaggerated:
Why are children, who have not had sex, and do not have HIV positive parents, contracting AIDS at an alarming rate? A rate much higher than the statistics provided by third world governments indicate should be possible.
And why is instance of every STD dropping, except HIV? Education is clearly working, in that it is encouraging safer sex in Africa. Why is safer sex not stopping HIV?
Both of these point ineluctably to the suggestion that the numbers regaring heterosexual transmission are not being accurately reported.
As far as why AIDS is attacking Africa more vigorously, you might take a look at the linked article. It seems that some people of European descent are actually immune and a lot more are resistant to HIV.
I can’t link to it but there is an article in a recent Scientific American on this. The gist of it is that this is a lucky accident caused by genetic response to smallpox.
What was supposed to be the “myth of heterosexual AIDS”?
Is it that there was a pandemic just around the corner?
Is it that AIDS would transmit swiftly among heterosexuals as it had among gay men?
Is it that AIDS would transmit at all among heterosexuals?
The information that Dogface and Iscariot posted have pretty clearly demonstrated that the third belief (if it were denied) would be validated by the evidence. Was that the “myth of heterosexual AIDS”? Or was it number 1, number 2, or some other assertion?
The “heterosexual AIDS myth” was that by the end of the millenium, there would be an epidemic among heterosexuals with transmission and infection rates on par with gays in the 80’s, not that there would never be any cases of HIV transmission heterosexually. That new infections among heterosexuals would skyrocket out of control. It has never happened. And bear in mind it was not only pundits and “instant experts” but public health officials who were playing at chicken little.
So, I suppose it would be no.s 1 and 2 of your question, tomndebb .
Were they playing at chicken little? Or, like the Y2K issue, did some more alarming reports (including some admittedly hysterical cries) lead to sufficient steps being taken in different ways that prevented the projected outbreak from occurring? Granted that there are conflicting views of the actual events in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the former Soviet Republics, it still sounds as though it is hardly a “homosexual” disease.
Thank you.
The SA article mentioned that the mutation was originally thought to have been a response to plague but that theory had been dropped in favor of smallpox. My understanding is that the spread of the mutation was insufficient for the length of time since the last plague epidemic.
OK, I looked it up. The SA article is Feb 2004 and the souce is the December 2003 Proceedings of the NAS. Plague was thought to be a poor fit due to it being bacterial in origin and having become less of a problem about 250 years ago. Smallpox was also considered a better fit on a geographic basis.
“Farber exposed the conspiracy between profit-hungry drug companies, researchers who wanted more funding, homosexuals who didn’t want the disease to be known as “the gay plague,” and conservatives who wanted to turn back the sexual revolution.”
Wow! I didn’t know you could get these people in the same room without a brawl ensuing, much less have them all “conspiring” together.
The anti-sex feminists on the feminist left and the moral conservatives on the religious right joined forces back in the 80s to attempt to censor the media. Didn’t work, but they were definitely “conspiring” together.
Granted, I think “conspiracy” is the wrong word here, as it implies secrecy. Working together to achieve a common goal is probably closer to the truth. Then again, there was a Big Lie goin’ round, so I guess there WAS an element of conspriracy.
I see nowhere that you’ve actually shown a statistic or study arguing that minorities inherently have some greater susceptibility, which may be why “It’s one of those statistics that’s something of a faux pas to mention in polite company, lest we seem racist.”
There is no question that minorities use more IV drugs per capita? First, who is included in this definition of minorities, and second, why is there no question? You seem to make generalizations and expect us to buy into them without actually presenting any cites or data.
I’ll look up that article sometime today and give it a read through. The CCR5 mutation is quite highly prevalent in European populations, which doesn’t necessarily mean evolutionary selection. It is quite difficult to actually differentiate selection from things like genetic drift. I believe the Tay Sachs mutation for a long time was thought to be protective for tuberculosis (in carriers). This was found not to be the case after around 20 years of research.
The smallpox hypothesis is intriguing though. I’ll let you know what I think…